Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: plan-gated refusal with the required plan named, and the blast radius ('change how the live chatbot behaves for every visitor'). Auth requirements and merge-vs-replace semantics are not stated, keeping it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisite, then the failure mode, then the impact. No sentence is redundant with the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers scope, prerequisite, failure mode, and effect on production traffic, which is enough to call it safely. Minor gaps remain around validation failures for unknown field names and whether changes take effect immediately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the shape of the nested object ('an object of field name to value') and naming example fields that the schema does not enumerate. It still does not describe the website_id fallback behavior, which the schema does.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('Turn website features on or off and set their values') with concrete examples (Real-Time Data Feed URL, PII Redaction rules), which clearly distinguishes it from the read-side sibling get_website_features.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit prerequisite and routes the agent to the alternative reader ('read them with get_website_features first'), plus the condition under which the call is rejected (feature not in plan). It does not spell out when-not to use it, but the workflow ordering is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.